ReviewCureus2026
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Major Depressive Disorder: Clinical Evidence, Neurobiological Mechanisms, and Treatment Perspectives.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Major depressive disorder (MDD) remains one of the leading causes of disability worldwide, and a substantial proportion of patients do not achieve remission with standard pharmacological treatments. In this context, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has gained increasing clinical recognition as a non-invasive alternative with a growing evidence base. We conducted a narrative review through a structured PubMed search combining the terms "major depressive disorder," "repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation," "rTMS," "theta burst stimulation," and "treatment-resistant depression." We prioritized randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and international clinical guidelines published between 2006 and 2025, favoring sham-controlled and multisite designs. A total of 31 articles were included. The available evidence supports the use of rTMS in patients with MDD who have not responded adequately to antidepressant therapy, though response rates remain modest--approximately 29% for high-frequency protocols in controlled trials. No reliable method currently exists for predicting which patients will benefit before treatment begins. Theta burst stimulation has shown comparable efficacy to conventional protocols in shorter sessions, and accelerated paradigms, such as Stanford Neuromodulation Therapy, have yielded striking preliminary results, though replication in larger and more representative samples is still needed. Neuroimaging biomarkers, particularly resting-state connectivity measures, show promise but remain outside routine clinical reach. How to sustain response after an acute course--and for whom--remains an open and underexplored question. rTMS has earned its place in the treatment of MDD. What the field still needs to answer is who benefits most, when to introduce it, and how to keep patients well over time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.